/p 


'bb 


61st  Congress,  ) 

SENATE. 

j Document 

2d  Session.  j 

( No.  524. 

POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


Mr.  Brown  presented  the  following: 

SPEECH  OF  HON.  JONATHAN  BOURNE,  JR.,  OF  OREGON,  DELIV- 
ERED IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE  MAY  5,  1910,  ON  “POP- 
ULAR VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT,  AND  ITS  EFFECT 
ON  LEGISLATION.” 


May  6,  1910. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Popular  Versus  Delegated  Government. 

Mr.  President,  the  justice  of  all  laws  rests  primarily  on  the  integ- 
rity, ability,  and  disinterestedness  of  the  individuals  enacting  them, 
those  construing  them,  and  those  administering  them.  On  this 
assumption,  I believe  the  remarks  I intend  to  make  have  a bearing 
on  all  legislation,  and  hence  do  not  hesitate  to  present  them  now 
while  we  have  the  interstate-commerce  bill  under  consideration. 

I think  all  will  concede  that  the  times  seem  awry.  Unrest  exists 
throughout  the  civilized  world.  People  are  speculating  as  to  the 
causes.  Daily  uncertainty  grows  stronger  as  to  future  events. 

In  my  opinion,  the  basic  cause  is  that  people  have  lost  confidence 
in  many  of  their  public  servants  and  bitterly  resent  attempted  dic- 
tatorship by  u would-be’ ’ political  bosses  and  representatives  of 
special  interests  who  desire  to  direct  public  servants  and  legislation 
for  their  own  selfish  interests  rather  than  assist  in  the  enactment  of 
laws  guaranteeing  justice  to  all  and  special  privileges  to  none. 

Successful  and  permanent  government  must  rest  primarily  on 
recognition  of  the  rights  of  men  and  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  the 
people.  Upon  these  principles  is  built  the  superstructure  of  our 
Republic.  Their  maintenance  and  perpetuation  measure  the  life  of 
the  Republic.  These  policies,  therefore,  stand  for  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  people  and  for  the  power  and  majesty  of  the  Govern- 
ment as  against  the  enemies  of  both. 

The  people  have  been  shocked  by  the  number  of  business  and 
political  exposures  which  have  been  brought  out  in  the  last  ten  years. 

At  the  time  of  Mr.  Roosevelt’s  inauguration  the  tendency  was  to 
measure  national  prosperity  by  property  rather  than  by  personal 
liberty.  The  commercial  force  of  society  was  rapidly  throttling  the 
police  power  of  the  Government.  Political  machines  and  bosses  dic- 
tated the  legislative  and  administrative  destinies  of  many  commu- 
nities and  States.  Mr.  Roosevelt,  with  his  experience  in  practical 


32 1 r ' j 

S66£ 

2 POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 

politics,  familiarity  with  governmental  operations,  inherent  honesty, 
dynamic  energy,  and  limitless  courage,  demonstrated  that  he  meas- 
ured up  to  the  needs  of  the  time,  and  assumed  leadership  for  rein- 
statement of  the  police  power  of  the  Government  in  supremacy  over 
the  commercial  force  of  society.  To  him  belongs  credit  for  reestab- 
lishment of  these  two  great  forces  in  their  proper  relative  positions. 
He  awakened  the  public  conscience,  and  the  result  is  a struggle 
throughout  the  nation  between  the  advocates  of  what  I would  term 
11  popular  government7’  and  the  advocates  of  delegated  government. 

DIRECT  SELECTION  OF  PUBLIC  SERVANTS. 

In  many  instances  the  people  have  lost  confidence  in  their  public 
servants,  the  same  as  many  stockholders  have  lost  confidence  in  cor- 
poration management.  The  remedy  in  government  is  the  direct 
selection  by  the  people  of  their  public  servants,  with  the  resultant 
accountability  of  the  public  servant  to  the  people,  and  not  to  a polit- 
ical machine  or  boss.  I purposely  use  the  word  “ selection 77  rather 
than  “nomination,77  for  to  my  mind  it  more  clearly  expresses  the 
idea  of  the  responsibility  of  good  citizenship.  Selection  implies  the 
careful  investigation  of  all  and  the  resultant  choice  of  one.  The  remedy 
in  corporation  management  is  rigid  responsibility  to  government; 
equal  obedience  to  laws  and  equal  accountability  to  stockholders, 
giving  the  Government  and  the  stockholders  the  fullest  publicity  of 
its  operations,  including  absolute  honesty  and  simplicity  of  its  ac- 
counts, thus  protecting  the  rights  of  the  people  and  insuring  to  all  the 
stockholders  proportional  enjoyment  in  the  fruits  of  successful  man- 
agement. 

Mr.  President,  I will  endeavor  to  deal  in  my  remarks  with  what  I 
believe  to  be  the  great  issue  not  only  in  this  country  but  throughout 
the  civilized  world,  namely,  popular  against  delegated  government. 

Much  has  been  said  in  favor  of  representative  government.  I 
believe  in  a truly  representative  government,  but  where  the  selection 
of  public  servants  is  left  to  a political  machine  or  boss,  as  is  frequently 
the  case  under  our  convention  system,  the  tendency  is  toward  mis-! 
representative,  and  not  a truly  representative,  form  of  government, 
notwithstanding  the  election  is  supposedly  by  the  people. 

PEOPLE  CAPABLE  OF  SELF-GOVERNMENT. 

There  are  doubtless  some  people  who  honestly  believe  that  the 
people  as  a whole  have  not  reached  the  stage  of  development  qualify- 
ing them  individually  to  participate  in  government.  Others  whom 
I credit  with  the  intelligence  which  I have  seen  manifested  by  them 
in  other  directions  assert  the  inability  of  the  people  to  govern  them- 
selves as  an  excuse  rather  than  a conviction;  but  I,  Mr.  President, 
from  thirty  years7  experience  in  practical  politics,  am  absolutely  con- 
vinced not  only  that  the  people  are  fully  capable  of  governing  them- 
selves, but  that  they  are  decidedly  the  best  judges  as  to  those  individ- 
uals to  whom  they  shall  delegate  the  truly  representative  power.  , 

Individual  selfishness,  cupidity,  and  ambition  are  minimized  in  the 
party  or  general  electorate  selections  of  public  servants;  good  gen- 
eral service  is  demanded  by  the  electorate,  special  service  by  the 
individual. 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


3 


Hence  my  advocacy  of  popular  government.  By  popular  govern- 
ment I mean  direct  legislation  as  far  as  practicable,  popular  selection 
of  candidates,  and  such  regulation  of  political  campaigns  as  will 
secure  fair  and  honest  elections.  Popular  selection  under  the  present 
stage  of  evolution  of  our  Government  can  be  obtained  only  by  direct 
primary  laws  and  complete  elimination  of  convention  and  caucus 
nomination  of  public  officers. 

Time  was  when  a few  self-constituted  leaders  in  Oregon  politics 
arrogated  to  themselves  the  prerogatives  of  government  and  made 
their  assumption  effective  through  illicit  combinations  and  the  use  of 
money  in  any  and  every  quarter  where  necessary  to  their  purposes 
of  control — that  is,  they  commercialized  conventions,  legislatures, 
and  the  administrative  branches  of  the  city,  county,  and  state  govern- 
ment. It  was  not  a condition  peculiar  to  Oregon.  It  obtained, 
and  I believe  still  obtains  in  a more  or  less  flagrant  degree,  in  every 
State  in  the  Union;  and  it  had  its  boldest,  most  unscrupulous  execu- 
tive genius  in  Boss  Tweed,  who,  recognizing  the  opportunity  of  the 
crook  in  government  by  party  through  convention  nominations, 
declared  he  did  not  care  who  elected  the  candidates  so  long  as  he 
had  the  power  to  nominate  the  ticket. 

Revolting  against  these  conditions,  the  State  which  I have  the 
honor,  in  part,  to  represent,  has  evolved  the  best  known  system 
of  popular  government,  and,  because  of  this  conviction,  I take 
this  opportunity  of  presenting  not  only  to  the  Senate  but  to  the 
country  a brief  analysis  of  the  Oregon  laws  bearing  upon  this  ques- 
tion, with  my  own  deductions  as  to  the  improvement  they  show  and 
the  merits  they  possess. 

AUSTRALIAN  BALLOT  LAW. 

Oregon  in  1891  adopted  the  Australian  ballot,  which  insures 
secrecy,  prevents  intimidation,  and  reduces  the  opportunity  for 
bribery.  This,  of  course,  is  a prerequisite  to  any  form  of  popu- 
lar government. 

REGISTRATION  LAW. 

Supplementing  the  Australian  ballot  law,  Oregon  enacted  in 
1899  a registration  law  applying  to  general  elections  and  enlarged 
its  scope  in  1904  in  the  law  creating  a direct  primary.  This  law 
requires  registration  prior  to  voting  in  either  the  general  or  the 
primary  election,  and  provides  that  before  voting  in  a party  primary 
the  voter  must,  under  oath,  register  his  party  affiliation.  Registra- 
tion begins  five  months  prior  to  the  general  election.  Registration 
books  are  closed  ten  days  prior  to  the  primary  election  and  opened 
again  four  days  after  the  primary,  and  then  kept  open  until  about 
twenty  days  before  the  general  election.  A voter  may  register  either 
bv  appearing  at  the  office  of  the  county  clerk  or  by  signing  registration 
blanks  before  a notary  public  or  justice  of  the  peace. 

Upon  the  registration  books  are  entered  the  full  name  of  the  voter, 
his  registration  number,  date  of  registration,  his  occupation,  age, 
nativity,  date  and  place  of  naturalization,  if  any,  and  his  place  of 
residence.  In  order  to  guard  against  fraud,  it  is  required  that  the 
voter  shall  give  his  street  and  number,  and  if  he  is  not  the  head  of  the 
house  he  occupies,  he  must  show  that  fact  and  give  the  number  of  the 


T 


35006 


4 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


room  he  occupies  and  upon  what  floor  of  the  building  it  is  located. 
He  must  also  sign  the  register,  if  he  can  write.  If  he  is  unable  to 
write  his  name,  the  reason  must  be  given.  If  his  inability  is  due  to  a 
physical  defect,  the  nature  of  the  infirmity  must  be  noted.  If  it  is 
due  to  illiteracy,  a physical  description  of  the  man  must  be  noted  in 
the  register. 

All  these  facts  are  entered  in  precinct  registers  which  are  placed  in 
the  hands  of  election  judges  and  clerks  on  election  day,  so  that 
illegal  voting  may  be  prevented. 

Any  registered  voter  may  be  challenged  and  every  nonregistered 
voter  is  considered  challenged.  An  unregistered  person  qualified 
as  an  elector  may  be  permitted  to  vote  upon  signing  an  affidavit 
setting  forth  all  the  facts  required  in  registration  and  also  securing  the 
affidavits  of  six  owners  of  real  property  to  the  effect  that  they  person- 
ally know  him  and  his  residence  and  believe  all  his  statements  to  be 
true. 

Thus  the  greatest  boon  of  American  citizenship,  namely,  the  right 
to  participate  in  government,  is  protected,  and  dead  men,  repeaters, 
and  nonresidents  can  no  longer  be  voted  in  Oregon. 

INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM. 

Oregon’s  next  step  in  popular  government  was  the  adoption  of  the 
initiative  and  referendum  amendment  to  the  constitution,  which 
amendment  was  adopted  in  June,  1902,  by  a vote  of  62,024  to  5,668. 
It  provides  that  legislative  authority  shall  be  vested  in  a legislative 
assembly,  but  that  the  people  reserve  to  themselves  the  power  to 
propose  laws  and  amendments  to  the  constitution  and  to  enact  or 
reject  the  same  at  the  polls  independent  of  the  legislative  assembly, 
and  also  reserve  power  to  approve  or  reject  at  the  polls  any  act  of 
the  legislature.  An  initiative  petition  must  be  signed  by  8 per  cent 
of  the  legal  voters,  as  shown  by  the  vote  for  supreme  judge  at  the  last 
preceding  general  election,  and  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  not 
less  than  four  months  before  the  election. 

A referendum  petition  need  be  signed  by  only  5 per  cent  of  the 
voters  and  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  within  ninety  days  after 
final  adjournment  of  the  legislature  which  passed  the  bill  on  which  the 
referendum  is  demanded.  The  legislature  may  itself  refer  to  the 
people  any  act  passed  by  it.  The  veto  power  of  the  governor  does 
not  extend  to  any  measure  referred  to  the  people. 

STATE  PUBLISHES  PUBLICITY  PAMPHLETS. 

In  addition  to  the  publicity  incident  to  the  circulation  of  the  peti- 
tions, the  law  provides  that  the  secretary  of  state  shall,  at  the  expense 
of  the  State,  mail  to  every  registered  voter  in  the  State  a printed  pam- 

Ehlet  containing  a true  copy  of  the  title  and  text  of  each  measure  to 
e submitted  to  the  people,  and  the  proponents  and  opponents  of  the 
law  have  the  right  to  insert  in  said  pamphlet,  at  the  actual  cost  to 
themselves  of  paper  and  printing  only,  such  arguments  as  they  see 
fit  to  make.  These  pamphlets  must  "be  mailed  not  later  than  fifty- 
five  days  before  a general  election  and  twenty  days  before  a special 
election. 

The  initiative  develops  the  electorate,  placing  directly  upon  them 
the  responsibility  for  legislation  enacted  under  its  provision;  the 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


5 


referendum  elevates  the  legislature  because  of  the  possibility  of  its 
use  in  case  of  undesirable  legislation.  Brains,  ideas,  and  argument, 
rather  than  money,  intimidation,  and  log-rolling  govern  the  standards 
of  legislation. 

Corporation  attorneys  must  exercise  their  mental  activities  along 
constructive  rather  than  destructive  and  avoidance  lines.  Possibility 
of  scandal  is  minimized,  recipients  of  franchises  freed  from  the  impu- 
tation of  secret  purchase,  and  general  community  confidence  is 
secured. 

Oregon’s  experience  satisfactory. 

Since  that  amendment  was  adopted  the  people  of  Oregon  have 
voted  upon  23  measures  submitted  to  them  under  the  initiative, 
5 submitted  under  the  referendum,  and  4 referred  to  the  people  by 
the  legislature.  Nineteen  measures  were  submitted  at  one  election, 
^fhat  the  people  acted  intelligently  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in 
'ho  instance  has  there  been  general  dissatisfaction  with  the  result  of 
the  votej  The  measures  submitted  presented  almost  every  phase 
of  legislation,  and  some  of  them  were  bills  of  considerable  length. 

Results  attained  under  direct  legislation  in  Oregon  compare  so 
favorably  with  the  work  of  a legislative  assembly  that  an  effort  to 
repeal  the  initiative  and  referendum  would  be  overwhelmingly 
defeated.  No  effort  has  ever  been  attempted. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  people  will  not  study  a large  number 
of  measures,  but  will  vote  in  the  affirmative,  regardless  of  the  merits 
of  measures  submitted.  Experience  in  Oregon  has  disproved  this, 
for  the  results  show  that  the  people  have  exercised  discriminating 
judgment.  They  have  enacted  laws  and  have  adopted  constitutional 
amendments  in  which  they  believed  and  have  defeated  those  of  which 
they  did  not  approve. 

CONCRETE  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

I will  give  several  concrete  illustrations: 

Under  the  initiative  in  1904  a local-option  liquor  law  was  adopted 
by  a vote  of  43,316  to  40,194.  Two  years  later  the  opponents  of  the 
local-option  law  proposed  an  amendment  in  their  interest,  and  this 
was  defeated  by  a vote  of  35,297  to  45,144.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
in  the  first  instance  the  issue  was  affirmatively  presented  and  in  the 
second  instance  negatively,  with  a view  to  befogging  the  people,  but 
the  popular  expression  was  the  same  in  both. 

For  many  years  city  charters  in  Oregon  had  been  made  the  trading 
stock  of  political  factions  in  the  legislature.  The  dominant  faction 
amended  city  charters  as  a reward  to  political  allies.  Traffic  in  local 
legislation  even  went  so  far  that  it  sometimes  served  as  a consideration 
in  election  of  United  States  Senators.  But,  in  1906,  having  tired  of 
this  disregard  of  the  interest  of  good  municipal  government,  the  peo- 
ple, acting  under  the  initiative,  adopted  a constitutional  amendment 
which  took  away  from  the  legislature  the  power  to  enact  or  amend  a 
city  charter  and  vested  that  power  in  the  people  of  the  municipalities, 
thus  establishing  home  rule.  The  amendment  was  adonted  by  a vote 
of  52,567  to  19,852. 

Mr.  Dixon.  Mr.  President,  if  it  will  not  interrupt  the  Senator 

The  Presiding  Officer  (Mr.  Kean  in  the  chair).  Does  the  Senator 
from  Oregon  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Montana  ? 


6 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


Mr.  Bourne.  I would  prefer  that  the  Senator  wait  until  I get 
through  before  asking  his  question. 

Mr.  Dixon.  I merely  want  to  ask  at  this  point  how  many  voters 
must  petition  in  order  to  initiate  legislation  ? 

Mr.  Bourne.  Eight  per  cent  of  the  voters,  as  I have  already  stated 
in  my  remarks. 

Mr.  La  Follette.  Mr.  President 

The  Presiding  Officer.  Does  the  Senator  from  Oregon  yield  to 
the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Bourne.  I do. 

Mr.  La  Follette.  I desire  to  ask  the  Senator  what  percentage 
of  the  total  vote  of  the  State,  as  a rule,  is  registered  on  the  important 
measures  that  are  submitted. 

Mr.  Bourne.  Mr.  President,  I would  say,  in  answer  to  the  Senator’s 
question 

Mr.  La  Follette.  Approximately. 

Mr.  Bourne.  Approximately  from  75  to  80  per  cent. 

In  Oregon,  as  in  many  other  States,  there  has  long  been  a feeling 
that  certain  classes  of  corporations  which  own  very  little  tangible 
property  do  not  bear  their  proper  share  of  theburdenof  taxation.  Leg- 
islatures failed  to  provide  a remedy.  For  the  purpose  of  securing  a 
more  equitable  distribution  of  the  burden  of  taxation  the  state  grange, 
proceeding  under  the  initiative,  proposed  a law  levying  a gross-earn- 
ings tax  of  3 per  cent  on  sleeping-car,  refrigerator-car,  and  oil-car 
companies,  which  measure  was  adopted  by  a vote  of  69,635  to  6,441. 
The  grange  also  proposed  a similar  law  levying  a gross-earnings  tax 
of  3 per  cent  on  express  and  2 per  cent  on  telephone  and  telegraph 
companies,  and  it  was  adopted  by  a vote  of  70,872  to  6,360.  Each 
of  these  gross-earnings  tax  laws  applied  only  to  intrastate  business. 

That  the  people  can  and  will  study  measures  and  vote  with  dis- 
crimination is  shown  by  the  record  upon  two  appropriation  bills 
passed  by  the  legislature  of  1907.  One  of  these  bills  proposed  to 
increase  the  annual  fixed  appropriation  for  the  state  university  from 
$47,500  to  $125,000.  The  other  bill  appropriated  $100,000  for  con- 
struction of  armories  for  the  national  guard.  The  referendum  was 
demanded  upon  both  measures,  and  both  were  submitted  to  a vote 
of  the  people  at  the  general  election  in  1908.  There  was  full  and 
fair  discussion  through  the  press,  at  public  meetings,  and  at  sessions 
of  the  grange.  The  bill  increasing  the  appropriation  for  the  univer- 
sity was  approved  by  the  people  by  a vote  of  44,115  to  40,535.  The 
armory  appropriation  bill  was  defeated  by  a vote  of  33,507  to  54,848. 

I shall  cite  but  one  more  of  many  instances  which  show  the  manner 
in  which  the  initiative  has  been  effective  in  Oregon.  For  a great 
many  years  there  had  been  efforts  to  secure  adequate  laws  for  the 
protection  of  salmon  in  the  Columbia  River,  but  because  of  con- 
flicting interests  between  the  upper  river  and  the  lower  river,  legis- 
latures could  not  be  induced  to  enact  laws  that  would  protect  the 
fish.  As  a consequence  the  salmon  fisheries  were  being  destroyed. 

At  the  election  in  1908  the  upper-river  fishermen  proposed  under 
the  initiative  a bill  practically  prohibiting  fishing  on  the  lower  river 
and  the  lower-river  fishermen  proposed  a bill  forbidding  fishing  on 
the  upper  river.  There  was  wide  discussion  of  both  bills,  and  the 
suggestion  was  freely  made  that  both  bills  should  be  adopted.  The 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


7 


people,  disgusted  with  the  failures  of  the  legislatures  to  enact  suitable 
laws  for  the  protection  of  fish,  followed  this  suggestion,  and  both 
bills  were  enacted.  With  fishing  practically  prohibited  on  both 
sections  of  the  river,  the  legislature  in  1909  responded  to  the  popular 
demand  by  enacting,  in  conjunction  with  the  legislature  of  the  State 
of  Washington,  a fishery  law  which  provided  adequate  protection.  I 
believe  I am  safe  in  saying  that  this  would  not  have  been  done  but 
for  the  popular  adoption  of  the  two  fishery  bills. 

I do  not  care  to  take  the  time  of  the  Senate  to  discuss  each  of  the 
measures  that  have  been  acted  upon  by  the  people  of  the  State,  but 
in  order  that  those  who  desire  may  have  the  opportunity  to  observe 
the  wide  range  the  measures  have  taken  and  the  attitude  assumed 
toward  them  by  the  people  of  Oregon,  I ask  consent  to  have  published 
in  the  Record  in  this  connection  a very  brief  summary  of  the  titles 
of  the  measures,  together  with  the  vote  upon  each. 

The  Presiding  Officer.  In  the  absence  of  objection,  permission 
is  granted. 

(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

* 

Popular  vote  upon  measures  submitted  to  the  people  of  Oregon  under  either  the  initiative 

or  referendum. 


. 1904. 

Direct  primary  law  with  direct  selection  of  United  States  Senator  ®. 
Local-option  liquor  law  a 


1906. 

Omnibus  appropriation  bill,  state  institutions  & 

Equal  suffrage  constitutional  amendment  a 

Local-option  bill  proposed  by  liquor  people  ® 

Bill  for  purchase  by  State  of  Barlow  toll  road  ® 

Amendment  requiring  referendum  on  any  act  calling  constitutional  convention  a 

Amendment  giving  cities  sole  power  to  amend  their  charters  a 

Legislature  authorized  to  fix  pay  of  state  printer  ® 

Initiative  and  referendum  to. apply  to  all  local,  special,  and  municipal  laws® 

Bill  prohibiting  free  passes  on  railroads  ® 

Gross-earnings  tax  on  sleeping,  refrigerator,  and  oil  car  companies  ® 

Gross-earnings  tax  on  express,  telephone,  and  telegraph  companies® 

1908. 

Amendment  increasing  pay  of  legislators  from  $120  to  $400  per  session  c 

Amendment  permitting  location  of  state  institutions  at  places  other  than  the  capital  c. 
Amendment  reorganizing  system  of  courts  and  increasing  supreme  judges  from  three 

to  five  c 

Amendment  changing  general  election  from  Tune  to  November  c 

Bill  giving  sheriffs  control  of  county  prisoners  & 

Railroads  required  to  give  public  officials  free  passes  & 

Bill  appropriating  $100,000  for  armories  b 

Bill  increasing  fixed  appropriation  for  State  University  from  $47,500  to  $125,000 

annually  b % 

Etjual-suffrage  amendment® 

Fishery  bill  proposed  by  fish- wheel  operators  ® 

Fishery  bill  proposed  by  gill-net  operators  ® 

Amendment  giving  cities  control  of  liquor  selling,  pool  rooms,  theaters,  etc.,  subject  to 

local-option  law  ® 

Modified  form  of  single-tax  amendment® 

Recall  power  on  public  officials  a 

Bill  instructing  legislators  to  vote  for  people’s  choice  for  United  States  Senators  a 

Amendment  authorizing  proportional-representation  law  a 

Corrupt-practices  act  governing  elections  ® 

Amendment  requiring  indictment  to  be  by  grand  jury  a 

Bill  creating  Hood  River  County  ® 


Yes. 

No. 

56,205 

16,354 

43,316 

40, 198 

43,918 

26,758 

36,902 

47,075 

35,297 

45,144 

31,525 

44,527 

47,661 

18,751 

52.567 

19,852 

63,749 

9,571 

47,678 

16,735 

57,281 

16,779 

69,635 

6,441 

70,872 

6,360 

19,691 

68,892 

41,971 

40,868 

30,243 

50,591 

65,728 

18,590 

60,443 

30,033 

28,856 

59,406 

33,507 

54,848 

44, 115 

40,535 

36, 858 

58,670 

46,582 

40,720 

56, 130 

30, 280 

39, 442 

52,346 

32,066 

60, 871 

58,381 

31,002 

69, 668 

21, 162 

48, 868 

34, 128 

54,042 

31,301 

52, 214 

28,487 

43, 948 

26, 778 

® Submitted  under  the  initiative. 
b Submitted  under  the  referendum  upon  legislative  act. 
c Submitted  to  the  people  by  the  legislature. 


8 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


DIRECT  LEGISLATION  NOT  EXPENSIVE. 

Mr.  Bourne.  Mr.  President,  anticipating  the  objection  that 
direct  legislation  is  expensive  to  the  State,  I will  say  that  the  sub- 
mission of  a total  of  32  measures  at  three  different  elections  in  Oregon 
has  cost  the  State  $25,000,  or  an  average  of  about  $781  for  each  meas- 
ure. At  the  election  in  1908  there  were  19  measures  submitted,  at 
a cost  to  the  State  of  $12,362,  or  an  average  of  about  $651  each. 
Five  of  these  19  measures  were  submitted  without  argument.  Upon 
the  other  14  measures  there  tvere  19  arguments  submitted,  for  which 
the  authors  paid  the  cost,  amounting  to  $3,157. 

I have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  people  of  Oregon  feel  satisfied 
that  they  have  received  full  value  for  the  $25,000  they  have  spent 
for  the  submission  of  measures  under  the  initiative  and  referendum. 
The  only  persons  who  raise  the  question  of  cost  are  those  who  would 
be  opposed  to  direct  legislation  if  it  were  free  of  cost.  I think  I could 
cite  numerous  instances  of  laws  passed  by  the  legislature  which  cost 
the  people  much  more  than  $25,000  without  any  tangible  return, 
and  perhaps  could  cite  a few  measures  which  had  been  defeated  by 
legislatures  with  resultant  loss  to  the  people  of  man}'  times  $25,000. 
The  cost  of  legislation  can  not  always  be  measured  in  dollars. 

PEOPLE  INTELLIGENT  AND  FAIR. 

The  people  are  not  only  intelligent,  but  fair  and  honest.  When  the 
initiative  and  referendum  was  under  consideration  it  was  freely  pre- 
dicted by  enemies  of  popular  government  that  the  power  would  be 
abused  and  that  capitalists  would  not  invest  their  money  in  a State 
where  property  would  be  subject  to  attacks  of  popular  passion  and 
temporary  whims.  Experience  has  exploded  this  argument.  There 
has  been  no  hasty  or  ill-advised  legislation.  The  people  act  calmly  and 
deliberately  and  with  that  spirit  of  fairness  which  always  character- 
izes a body  of  men  who  earn  their  living  and  acquire  their  property 
by  legitimate  means.  Corporations  have  not  been  held  up  and  black- 
mailed by  the  people,  as  they  often  have  been  by  legislators.  “ Pinch 
bills”  are  unknown.  The  people  of  Oregon  were  never  before  more 
prosperous  and  contented  than  they  are  to-day,  and  never  before  did 
the  State  offer  such  an  inviting  field  for  investment  of  capital.  Not 
only  are  two  transcontinental  railroads  building  across  the  State,  but 
several  interurban  electric  lines  are  under  construction,  and  rights 
of  way  for  others  are  in  demand. 

I have  mentioned  all  of  these  facts  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
the  people  of  my  State,  and,  I believe,  the  people  of  every  other  State, 
can  be  trusted  to  act  intelligently  and  honestly  upon  any  question  of 
legislation  submitted  for  their  approval  or  disapproval. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  is  but  one  of  the  features  of  popular 
government  in  Oregon.  It  has  been  the  means  by  which  other 
reforms  and  progressive  laws  and  constitutional  amendments  have 
been  secured,  for  it  has  been  found  that  the  people  can  not  always 
get  the  laws  they  desire  through  the  legislature,  but  can  get  them 
through  resort  to  the  initiative. 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


9 


DIRECT  PRIMARY  LAW. 

The  next  step  after  the  adoption  of  the  initiative  and  referendum 
was  the  adoption,  in  1904,  by  a vote  of  56,205  to  16,354,  of  a direct 
primary  law,  which  is  designed  to  supersede  the  old  and  unsatisfac- 
tory convention  system.  The  Oregon  direct  primary  law  provides 
for  a primary  election  to  be  held  forty-five  days  prior  to  the  general 
election  at  the  usual  polling  places  and  with  the  usual  three  election 
judges  and  three  clerks  in  charge,  appointed  by  the  county  courts. 
Not  more  than  two  judges  or  clerks  can  be  members  of  the  same 
political  party.  Two  sets  of  ballots  are  provided,  one  for  the  Dem- 
ocratic party  and  one  for  the  Republican  party.  Any  party  polling 
25  per  cent  of  the  vote  at  the  previous  election  is  brought  under  the 
provisions  of  the  direct  primary  law,  but  thus  far  only  the  Demo- 
cratic and  Republican  parties  are  affected  by  it. 

Any  legal  voter  may  become  a candidate  in  the  primaries  for 
nomination  for  any  office  by  filing  a petition  signed  by  a certain  per 
cent  of  the  voters  of  his  party.  If  the  nomination  is  for  a municipal 
or  county  office,  the  petition  must  include  registered  electors  residing 
in  at  least  one-fifth  of  the  voting  precincts  of  the  county,  munici- 
pality, or  district.  If  it  be  a state  or  district  office  and  the  district 
comprises  more  than  one  county  the  petition  must  include  electors 
residing  in  each  of  at  least  one-eighth  of  the  precincts  in  at  least  two 
counties  in  the  district.  If  it  be  an  office  to  be  voted  for  in  the  State  at 
large  the  petition  must  include  electors  residing  in  each  of  at  least  one- 
tenth  of  the  precincts  in  each  of  at  least  seven  counties  of  the  State. 
If  it  be  an  office  to  be  voted  for  in  a congressional  district  the  petition 
must  include  electors  residing  in  at  least  one-tenth  of  the  precincts 
in  each  of  at  least  one-fourth  of  the  counties  in  the  district.  The 
number  of  signers  required  is  at  least  2 per  cent  of  the  party  vote  in 
the  electoral  district,  but  not  more  than  1,000  signers  are  required 
for  a state  or  congressional  office  nor  more  than  500  in  any  other  case. 
Petitions  must  be  filed  for  a state  or  district  office  at  least  twenty 
days  before  the  primary  election,  and  for  county  or  municipal  offices 
fifteen  days  before  the  election.  Names  of  the  candidates  are 
arranged  on  the  ballots  in  alphabetical  order.  The  ballot  for  the 
Republican  party  is  printed  on  white  paper;  that  for  the  Democratic 
party  on  blue  paper;  and  that  for  any  other  party  on  yellow  paper. 
The  Australian  ballot  form  is  used  in  the  primaries.  No  elector  is 
qualified  to  vote  at  a party  primary  election  unless  he  has  registered 
and  designated,  under  oath,  his  party  affiliation,  except  that  he  may 
register  at  the  polls  on  election  day  by  filing  an  affidavit,  verified  by 
six  freeholders  of  his  precinct  certifying  to  his  legal  qualifications,  in 
which  affidavit  he  must  also  designate  his  party  affiliation. 

PARTY  INTEGRITY  PROTECTED. 

No  voter  is  required  to  designate  his  party  affiliation  in  order  to 
vote  at  the  general  election,  but  registration  of  party  affiliation 
is  a prerequisite  to  participation  in  a party  primary.  This  require- 
ment prevents  the  participation  of  members  of  one  party  in  the  pri- 
maries of  another  party.  The  right  of  each  par^y  to  choose  its  own 
candidates  is  thus  protected,  and  an  evil  all  too  common  where 
restrictive  party  primary  laws  are  not  in  force  is  avoided. 


10 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


Our  direct  primary  law  further  provides  that  the  candidate  in  his 
petition  shall,  among  other  things,  agree  to  “accept  the  nomination 
and  will  not  withdraw;”  and,  if  elected,  “will  qualify  as  an  officer,” 
implying,  of  course,  that  he  will  also  serve.  Each  candidate  is  entitled 
to  have  placed  in  his  petition  a statement  in  not  to  exceed  100  words, 
and  on  the  ballot,  after  his  name,  a legend  in  not  to  exceed  12  words, 
setting  forth  any  measures  or  principles  he  especially  advocates. 

STATEMENT  NO.  1. 

In  the  case  of  a legislator’s  nomination,  the  candidate  may,  in  addi- 
tion to  his  statement,  not  exceeding  100  words  specifying  measures 
and  principles  he  advocates,  also  subscribe  to  one  of  two  statements, 
but  if  he  does  not  so  subscribe  he  shall  not  on  that  account  be  debarred 
from  the  ballot.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  three  courses  are 
open  to  him.  He  may  subscribe  to  “Statement  No.  1”  as  follows: 

I further  state  to  the  people  of  Oregon,  as  well  as  to  the  people  of  my  legislative 
district,  that  during  my  term  of  office  I shall  always  vote  for  that  candidate  for  United 
States  Senator  in  Congress  who  has  received  the  highest  number  of  the  people’s  votes 
for  that  position  at  the  general  election  next  preceding  the  election  of  a Senator  in 
Congress  without  regard  to  my  individual  preference. 

Or  he  may  subscribe  to  “Statement  No.  2,”  as  follows: 

During  my  term  of  office  I shall  consider  the  vote  of  the  people  for  United  States 
Senator  in  Congress  as  nothing  more  than  a recommendation,  which  I shall  be  at  liberty 
to  wholly  disregard  if  the  reason  for  doing  so  seems  to  me  to  be  sufficient. 

Or  he  may  be  perfectly  silent  on  the  election  of  United  States 
Senator.  It  is  entirely  optional  with  the  candidate. 

POPULAR  VOTE  FOR  UNITED  STATES  SENATOR. 

The  law  further  provides  that  United  States  Senators  may  be  nomi- 
nated by  their  respective  parties  in  the  party  primaries,  and  the 
candidate  receiving  the  greatest  number  of  votes  thereby  becomes 
the  party  nominee.  Then  in  the  general  election  the  party  nominees 
are  voted  for  by  the  people,  and  the  individual  receiving  the  greatest 
number  of  votes  in  the  general  election  thereby  becomes  the  people’s 
choice  for  United  States  Senator. 

Notwithstanding  that  our  primary-election  law  embodying  these 
statements,  particularly  statement  No.  1,  was  passed  by  a popular 
vote  of  approximately  56,000  for  to  16,000  against,  the  opponents 
of  the  law  charged  that  the  people  did  not  know  what  they  wTere 
doing  when  they  voted  for  it.  Therefore,  the  advocates  of  the 
election  of  Senators  by  the  people  and  of  the  enforcement  of  state- 
ment No.  1 submitted  to  the  people  under  the  initiative  in  1908  the 
following  bill: 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  -people  of  the  State  of  Oregon: 

Section  1.  That  we,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  hereby  instruct  our  repre- 
sentatives and  senators  in  our  legislative  assembly,  as  such  officers,  to  vote  for  and 
elect  the  candidates  for  United  States  Senators  from  this  State  who  receive  the  highest 
number  of  votes  at  our  general  elections. 

Although  there  was  no  organized  campaign  made  for  the  adoption 
of  this  bill  other  than  the  argument  accompanying  its  submission, 
while  the  opponents  of  the  primary  law  assailed  it  vehemently,  the 
basic  principle  of  statement  No.  1 and  the  election  of  United  States 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


11 


Senators  by  the  people  was  again  indorsed  by  the  passage  of  the  bill 
by  a popular  vote  of  69,5*65  for  it  to  21,182  against  it,  or  by  nearly 
3Jtol. 

HOW  A DEMOCRAT  WAS  ELECTED  SENATOR. 

Mr.  President,  in  this  connection  I deem  it  proper  to  divert  for  a 
time  from  an  explanation  of  our  primary  law  and  give  a concrete 
illustration  of  its  operation.  Both  my  colleague,  Senator  Chamber- 
lain,  and  myself  were  selected  by  the  people  and  elected  by  the  legis- 
lature under  the  provision  of  this  law.  Opponents  of  popular  govern- 
ment, and  especially  of  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  a 
direct  vote  of  the  people,  have  bitterly  assailed  statement  No.  1 of 
our  law  because  a legislature,  overwhelmingly  Republican,  elected 
my  colleague,  who  was  a candidate  selected  by  the  Democratic  party 
and  nominated  by  the  whole  electorate  of  the  State  as  the  people’s 
choice  of  our  State  for  United  States  Senator.  Upon  reflection  I 
think  every  intelligent  man  who  is  honest  with  himself  must  concede 
that  this  fact,  instead  of  being  the  basis  of  a criticism,  is  the  highest 
kind  of  evidence  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  law,  and  every  advocate  of 
the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  a popular  vote  must  realize 
that  Oregon  has  evolved  a plan,  through  its  statement  No.  1 provision 
of  its  primary  law,  wherein,  in  effect,  the  people  enjoy  the  privilege 
of  selecting  their  United  States  Senators,  and,  through  the  crystalli- 
zation of  public  opinion,  the  legislative  ratification  of  their  action. 

The  Oregon  legislature  consists  of  90  members,  30  in  the  senate  and 
60  in  the  house,  46  making  the  necessary  majority  on  full  attendance 
for  the  election  of  United  States  Senator.  Fifty-one  members  out  of 
90  of  the  legislature  which  elected  my  colleague,  Senator  Chamberlain, 
were  subscribers  to  Statement  No.  1 , making  on  joint  ballot  a majority 
of  6 out  of  a total  of  90  members.  All  of  these  51  members  sub- 
scribed to  Statement  No.  1 pledge  voluntarily,  and  it  was  so  sub- 
scribed to  by  them  from  a personal  belief  in  the  desirability  of  the 
popular  election  of  United  States  Senators  and  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  for  themselves  from  the  electorate  preferment  in  the  election 
to  the  office  sought;  the  consideration  in  exchange  for  such  prefer- 
ment was  to  be  by  them,  as  the  legally  constituted  representatives 
of  the  electorate  in  their  behalf,  the  perfunctory  confirmation  of  the 
people’s  selection  of  United  States  Senator  as  that  choice  might  be 
ascertained  under  the  provisions  of  the  same  law  by  which  the  legis- 
lators themselves  secured  nomination  to  office. 

To  further  illuminate  the  situation,  I will  state  that  in  the  primaries 
held  in  April,  1908,  H.  M.  Cake  received  the  Republican  nomination 
for  United  States  Senator,  and  my  colleague,  Senator  Chamberlain, 
then  governor  of  the  State,  received  the  Democratic  nomination  for 
United  States  Senator.  At  the  general  election  in  June  Senator 
Chamberlain  defeated  Mr.  Cake,  notwithstanding  the  State  was 
overwhelmingly  Republican,  thereby  developing  from  the  Demo- 
cratic candidate  into  the  people’s  choice  for  United  States  Senator. 
The  normal  Republican  majority  in  Oregon,  I think,  is  from  15,000  to 
20,000. 

With  full  recognition  of  Governor  Chamberlain’s  ability  and  fitness 
for  the  office,  the  fact  that  for  nearly  six  years  he  made  the  best 
governor  Oregon  ever  had,  and  considering  that  undoubtedly  he  is 
the  most  popular  man  in  our  State,  I deem  it  but  just  to  the  law  and 


12 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


a proper  answer  to  the  criticism  of  enemies  of  the  law  that  it  destroys 
party  lines  and  integrity,  to  state  that,  in  my  opinion,  Senator  Cham- 
berlain received  the  votes  of  several  thousand  Republican  enemies  of 
the  law,  who  believed  that  in  selecting  Governor  Chamberlain,  a 
Democrat,  they  would  prevent  a Republican  legislature  from  ratify- 
ing the  people’s  selection,  obeying  the  people’s  instructions,  and 
electing  as  United  States  Senator  the  individual,  regardless  of  party, 
that  the  people  might  select  for  that  office.  Thus  they  hoped  to 
make  the  primary  law  and  Statement  No.  1 odious,  and  sought  to 
create  what  they  thought  would  be  an  impossible  condition  by  forcing 
upon  a Republican  legislature  for  confirmation  the  popularly  desig- 
nated Democratic  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate.  They 
failed  to  realize  that  greater  than  party,  and  infinitely  greater  than 
any  individual,  the  people’s  choice  becomes  a representative  of  the 
principle  and  of  the  law;  that  the  intelligence  and  integrity  of  the 
whole  electorate  of  the  State,  as  well  as  the  integrity  and  loyalty  of 
the  members  of  the  legislature  were  at  stake,  and  from  any  honorable 
viewpoint  the  mere  intimation  of  the  possibility  of  the  legislature  or 
any  member  of  the  legislature  failing  conscientiously  to  fulfill  his 
pledge  or  loyally  obey  the  instructions  of  the  people  would  not  only 
be  an  insult  to  the  individual  members  of  the  legislature,  but  an 
insult  to  the  intelligence,  independence,  and  patriotism  of  the  Oregon 
electorate,  that  they  would  permit  such  action  to  go  unnoticed,  or 
without  holding  the  culprit  to  a rigid  responsibility  for  his  treason. 


NO  OATH  MORE  SACRED. 

Let  us  again  consider  the  wording  of  this  statement  No.  1 pledge, 
taken  by  51  members  of  the  Oregon  legislature: 

STATEMENT  NO.  1. 

I further  state  to  the  people  of  Oregon,  as  well  as  to  the  people  of  my  legislative 
district,  that  during  my  term  of  office  I will  always  vote  for  that  candidate  for  United 
States  Senator  in  Congress  who  has  received  the  highest  number  of  the  people’s  votes 
for  that  position  at  the  general  election  next  preceding  the  election  of  a Senator  in 
Congress,  without  regard  to  my  individual  preference. 

No  oath  could  be  more  sacred  in  honor,  no  contract  more  binding, 
no  mutual  consideration  more  definite,  than  is  contained  in  this 
statement  No.  1 pledge,  and  no  parties  to  a contract  could  be  of 
more  consequence  to  government  and  society  than  the  electorate 
upon  the  one  side  and  its  servants  upon  the  other. 

[At  this  point  Mr.  Bourne  was  interrupted  by  the  expiration  of  the 
morning  hour,  when,  by  unanimous  consent,  the  unfinished  business 
was  temporarily  laid  aside  that  he  might  conclude  his  speech.] 

Mr.  Bourne.  Under  the  United  States  Constitution  there  can  be 
no  penalty  attached  to  the  law.  The  legislator  breaking  his  sacred 
pledge  can  not  be  imprisoned  or  fined,  hence  he  is  doubly  bound  by 
honor  to  redeem  his  voluntary  obligations.  Failure  to  do  so  would 
not  only  brand  him  as  the  destroyer  of  a sacred  trust,  but  as  the  most 
contemptible  of  cowards  because  legally  immune  from  punishment 
for  his  perfidy. 

Yet,  Mr.  President,  there  were  efforts  made  to  dishonor  our  State 
and  our  public  servants.  During  the  session  of  the  legislature  a 
former^governmentjofficialjyan  assistant  to  the  chairman  of  the 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


13 


Republican  national  committee,  appeared  in  Oregon  and,  I am 
informed,  promised  federal  appointments  to  legislative  members  if 
they  would  disregard  their  Statement  No.  1 pledges  to  the  electorate. 
The  effort  was  made  by  the  enemies  of  the  law  to  create  the  impres- 
sion that  by  reason  of  this  person’s  relations  with  the  chairman  of 
the  Republican  national  committee  during  the  national  campaign, 
he  would  be  able  to  deliver  these  promised  federal  appointments  in 
case  Statement  No.  1 subscribers  sold  their  honor  and  betrayed  their 
trust. 

I mention  these  facts  to  show  that  the  greatest  possible  strain  was 
placed  upon  our  law,  and  to  the  credit  of  the  51  subscribers  of  State- 
ment No.  1 in  that  legislature  be  it  said  that  every  one  of  those 
subscribers  voted  in  accordance  with  his  solemn  obligation.  But  I 
would  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  fact  that  notwithstanding 
the  people  of  the  State  had  passed  under  the  initiative  the  bill  I 
have  referred  to  instructing  all  the  members  of  the  legislature  to 
vote  for  the  people’s  choice  for  United  States  Senator,  not  a single 
member  of  the  legislature  obeyed  said  instructions  except  the  State- 
ment No.  1 subscriber. 

AN  EVOLUTION  OF  PRACTICAL  POLITICS. 

Mr.  President,  Statement  No.  1 was  an  evolution  of  many  years’ 
experience  with  practical  and  commercial  politics.  We  doubtless 
all  have  found  in  individual  cases  that  men’s  memories,  pledges,  and 
agreements  were  a negligible  quantity,  but  I think  we  in  Oregon 
have  demonstrated  that  our  direct  primary  law  contains  a pledge 
that  will  hold  any  sane  man  regardless  of  his  cupidity,  ambition, 
cowardice,  or  temerity. 

OTHER  PROVISIONS  OF  PRIMARY  LAW. 

Resuming  consideration  of  the  direct  primary:  The  returns  from 
a primary  election  are  canvassed  in  the  same  manner  as  the  returns 
from  a general  election,  and  the  candidate  receiving  the  highest  vote 
for  each  office  is  declared  the  nominee  of  his  party.  Candidates  of 
parties  other  than  those  polling  25  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  of  the 
State  may  be  nominated  without  participating  in  the  direct  primary, 
but  by  means  of  petition  or  mass  meeting.  No  candidate  nominated 
otherwise  than  in  the  direct  primary  can  use  either  the  word  “ Repub- 
lican” or  “ Democrat”  in  any  form;  that  is,  the  nominees  of  the 
direct  primary  are  entitled  to  the  party  designation  in  the  general 
election,  and  no  opposition  candidate  can  designate  himself  as  an 
“ Independent  Republican”  or  “ Progressive  Republican,”  or  use 
any  other  qualifying  term  which  includes  the  word  “ Republican” 
or  “ Democrat.”  These  provisions  secure  to  the  nominees  of  the 
direct  primary  the  exclusive  right  to  their  party  designation  on  the 
ballot  m the  general  election.  Each  candidate  in  the  direct  primary 
is  entitled  to  have  placed  in  his  petition  for  nomination  a statement 
containing  not  to  exceed  100  words,  and  on  the  ballot  in  the  primary 
and  general  election  a legend  of  not  more  than  12  words  specifying 
any  measures  or  principles  he  especially  advocates. 

In  my  opinion  the  direct  primary  is  the  only  practicable  method 
of  fully  securing  to  the  people  their  right  to  choose  their  public 
servants. 


14 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


CONVENTION  NOMINEE  UNDER  OBLIGATION  TO  A BOSS. 

Under  the  convention  system  the  members  of  a party  delegate 
their  power  of  selection  of  candidates  to  the  members  of  a convention. 
To  my  mind,  this  system  is  most  pernicious,  because  the  party  elect- 
orate feels  that  its  responsibility  ceases  with  the  selection  of  its  con- 
vention delegates.  Hence  the  responsibility  of  citizenship  is  weakened 
and  shiftlessness  encouraged. 

As  soon  as  the  delegates  to  the  convention  are  chosen,  the  power  of 
selection  of  public  servants  becomes  centralized  in  a few  and  oppor- 
tunity is  extended  to  individuals  and  interests  who  wish  to  use  public 
servants  for  selfish  or  ulterior  purposes.  Influences  adverse  to  the 
general  welfare  are  immediately  brought  to  bear  upon  this  body  of 
delegates.  Factions  are  created,  combinations  effected,  and  party 
disruption  frequently  results.  Often  a convention  nominates  a man 
for  public  office  who,  prior  to  the  convention,  was  never  seriously  con- 
sidered as  a probable  nominee. 

In  my  thirty  years’  experience  in  politics  quite  frequently  have  I 
seen  this  the  case.  This  strengthens  my  conviction  that  the  prevailing 
system  of  convention  selections  of  party  candidates  is  not  representa- 
tive, but  misrepresent ative,  form  of  government.  The  people  cer- 
tainly have  no  voice  in  the  selection  of  candidates  when  their 
temporary  representatives  had  no  idea  of  making  a selection  until 
occurrences  transpiring  during  the  convention  determine  their  action. 

Let  us  look  at  the  system  in  vogue  in  the  selection  of  delegates. 
In  most  cases  where  convention  nominations  are  made  we  can  trace 
back  to  the  political  boss  and  machine  the  preparation  of  a slate  of 
delegates.  In  the  selection  of  the  individuals  composing  the  slate 
the  political  boss  has  in  mind  the  perpetuation  of  his  own  power, 
and  selects  individuals  whose  interests  are  identical  with  his  or  whom 
he  thinks  he  can  direct  and  control,  though  occasionally,  if  antici- 
pating a struggle,  he  will  select  a few  men  whose  standing  in  the  com- 
munity will  bring  strength  to  the  slate  he  has  prepared  in  order  to 
carry  out  his  purposes.  Independent  men  are  selected  only  where 
it  is  deemed  necessary  by  the  political  boss  to  deceive  the  public  and 
secure  sufficient  support  from  the  personal  influence  of  those  few 
selections  to  carry  through  the  slate,  made  up  chiefly  of  his  willing 
tools.  This  system  prevails  not  only  in  selection  of  delegates  to 
county  conventions,  but  in  selection  of  delegates  to  congressional, 
state,  and  national  conventions  as  well.  The  result  is  inevitable  that 
the  delegates  nominate  candidates  whom  the  machine  and  political 
bosses  desire,  except  in  rare  cases  where  a few  independent  men  are 
able,  by  presentation  of  arguments  against  the  qualifications  of  a 
machine  candidate,  to  demonstrate  to  the  convention  the  probability 
of  the  defeat  of  the  man  slated  for  the  position.  Frequently,  of 
course,  a case  is  presented  where  the  boss  has  made  promises  to 
various  aspirants  for  the  same  office,  in  which  case  he  excuses  him- 
self to  the  disappointed  aspirant  by  explaining  that  he  was  unable  to 
control  the  convention.  Thus  mendacity  and  treachery  are  fostered 
by  the  convention  system  which  by  the  primary  system  are  absolutely 
eliminated. 

Under  the  convention  system  the  nominee  realizes  that  his  nomina- 
tion is  due  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  to  the  boss.  With  this  knowledge 
naturally  goes  a feeling  of  obligation,  so  that  the  nominee,  when 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


15 


electee!,  is  desirous,  whenever  possible,  of  acceding  to  the  wishes  of 
the  man  to  whom  his  nomination  is  due.  Thus  the  efficiency  and 
independence  of  the  public  servant  is  seriously  affected  and  his  duty 
to  the  public  in  many  cases  completely  annihilated. 

NOMINEE  OF  DIRECT  PRIMARY  RESPONSIBLE  TO  PEOPLE  ALONE. 

How  different  in  its  operation  is  the  direct  primary.  The  man 
who  seeks  a nomination  under  the  direct  primary  system  must  present 
before  the  members  of  his  party  the  policies  and  principles  by  which 
he  will  be  governed  if  nominated  and  elected.  He  must  submit  to 
them  his  past  record  in  public  and  private  life.  Promises  made  to 
political  bosses  or  machine  managers  will  have  no  beneficial  influence 
in  determining  the  result,  and  therefore  the  candidate  is  not  tempted 
to  place  himself  under  obligations  to  any  interests  adverse  to  those  of 
the  general  public.  The  members  of  a party  have  it  within  their 
power  to  determine  which  of  the  candidates  best  represents  their  ideas 
and  wishes.  After  they  have  made  their  selections  the  candidates  of 
opposing  parties  must  stand  before  the  people  at  the  general  election, 
when  a choice  will  be  made  between  them.  A public  servant  thus 
chosen  owes  his  election  to  no  faction,  machine,  or  boss,  but  to  the 
members  of  his  party  and  the  electorate  of  his  State  or  district.  He 
is  accountable  to  them  alone  for  his  conduct  in  office,  and  has,  there- 
fore, every  incentive  to  render  the  best  possible  public  service.  How 
different  in  all  essentials  from  the  position  of  the  candidate  who  has 
received  his  nomination  at  the  hands  of  a convention  controlled  by  a 
political  machine. 

The  great  masses  of  the  people  are  not  only  intelligent,  but  honest. 
They  have  no  selfish  interests  to  serve  and  ask  nothing  of  their  public 
officials  but  faithful  and  efficient  service.  Only  the  very  few  have 
interests  adverse  to  those  of  the  general  welfare.  The  people  there- 
fore act  only  for  public  good  when  they  choose  between  candidates 
for  the  nomination  or  candidates  for  election. 

The  direct  primary  encourages  the  people  of  the  country  to  study 
public  questions  and  to  observe  and  pass  judgment  upon  the  acts  of 
their  public  officials.  This  in  itself  tends  very  strongly  to  the  build- 
ing up  of  a better  citizenship. 

Honest  selections  mean  honest  government  and  better  public 
servants. 

Public  servants  who  lack  confidence  in  the  intelligence  or  honesty 
of  the  people  will  find  their  feelings  reciprocated. 

PRIMARY  LAWS  PROTECT  PARTIES. 

Many  claim  that  primary  laws  destroy  party.  In  my  opinion  they 
protect  and  cement  parties.  Party  success  depends,  under  primary 
laws,  upon  the  ideas  and  principles  advocated  and  the  nominations 
made  by  the  parties  in  their  primaries.  If  a majority  party  fails  to 
make  proper  nominations,  or  if  the  minority  party  has  better  material 
in  its  electorate,  then  a minority  party  would  rapidly  develop  into  a 
majority  party,  and  rightly  so.  Under  a direct  primary  law  no  indi- 
vidual can  acquire  a large  personal  following  or  build  up  a personal 
organization,  except  such  a following  as  would  support  the  individual 
on  account  of  the  principles  advocated  by  him  or  the  demonstration 
made  by  him  as  a public  servant.  But  no  man  would  be  able  to 


16 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


transfer  such  a following  for  or  against  another  individual,  though  he 
might  influence  thousands  or  hundreds  of  thousands  of  voters  to 
support  his  ideas,  constructive  suggestions,  or  proposed  solution  of 
pending  problems.  This  does  not  destroy  party,  but  elevates  and 
strengthens  it,  and  fortunate  indeed  is  that  party  which  possesses  in 
its  electorate  one  or  more  individuals  who  are  able  to  advance  new 
ideas  or  evolve  solutions  which  appeal  to  the  sound  judgment  of  his 
fellow-men. 

POPULAR  SELECTION  OF  PRESIDENT  AND  VICE-PRESIDENT. 

For  years  the  desirability  of  popular  selection  of  candidates  for 
President  and  Vice-President  has  grown  upon  my  mind.  By  adoption 
of  such  a plan,  Presidents  would  be  relieved  of  prenomination  or 
preelection  obligations,  except  the  obligation  of  good  service  to  all 
the  people.  Thus  accountability  to  the  people  alone  would  be 
established  and  aspirants  for  the  Presidency  would  be  free  from  the 
necessity  of  consulting  the  wishes  of  men  who  make  and  manipulate 
conventions.  To  render  good  public  service  would  be  the  sole 
desire,  for  reelection  would  depend  upon  demonstration  of  capability 
and  fitness  for  office.  Because  of  this  conviction  I have  arranged  to 
submit,  under  the  initiative,  to  the  people  of  Oregon  at  the  next 
general  election  a bill  further  enlarging  the  scope  of  our  present 
primary  law.  It  provides  for  the  direct  primary  election  of  delegates 
to  national  conventions,  selections  of  presidential  electors,  and  gives 
the  opportunity  to  the  elector  in  his  party  primary  to  express  his 
preference  for  President  and  Vice-President. 

I am  confident  that  the  people  of  Oregon  will  enact  this  law,  and  I 
hope  that  other  States  will  follow  her  example,  in  which  event, 
through  the  crystallization  of  public  opinion,  a method  of  popular 
selection  of  Presidents  and  Vice-Presidents  would  be  secured  without 
violation  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

NOT  A REVOLUTIONARY  CHANGE. 

The  declaration  by  each  State  of  its  choice  for  President  would 
be  in  no  sense  a wider  departure  from  the  Constitution  than  was  the 
transformation  of  the  electoral  college  into  a mere  registering  or 
recording  board,  yet  no  one  now  thinks  such  change  in  any  wise 
revolutionary.  The  theory  of  the  Constitution  was  that  each  State 
should  choose  a body  of  electors  who  should  have  choice — election — 
as  to  those  for  whom  they  should  vote  for  President  and  Vice- 
President.  This  theory  we  find  expressed  in  all  the  expository  letters 
and  pamphlets  written  by  those  who  drafted  the  Constitution.  The 
electors  were  to  be  free  men,  bound  to  no  candidate  nor  to  any  party. 
They  were  to  meet  and  survey  the  whole  country,  choosing  therefrom 
according  to  their  own  unhampered  and  wisest  judgment  the  man 
best  fitted  to  be  the  head  of  the  nation.  This  was  the  law  in  1789, 
and  it  is  the  law  to-day.  Theoretically  and  legally  the  electoral 
college  which  cast  its  perfunctory  vote  for  Mr.  Taft  and  Mr.  Sherman 
might  have  elected  Mr.  Bryan  and  Mr.  Kerns.  Had  this  been  done, 
all  the  vast  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  could  not  have  set  the  elec- 
tion aside  or  compelled  a true  registration  of  the  popular  decision 
as  expressed  at  the  polls.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
changed  a hundred  years  ago  by  force  of  mere  popular  acceptation 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


17 


and  general  usage,  so  that  its  machinery  to-day  is  used  to  effect  an 
end  which  it  does  not  in  its  letter  express — and  did  not  in  its  concep- 
tion anticipate.  We  have  made  the  constitutional  machinery  suit 
our  idea  of  the  way  this  Government  should  be  conducted. 

We  have  said  that  it  was  better  that  we  should  by  means' of  political 
parties  choose  candidates  and  by  moral  force  bind  the  electors  whom 
we  nominate  to  vote  for  such  candidates  than  that  we  should  leave 
the  electors  we  might  choose  free  to  do  as  they  saw  fit.  We  have 
converted  the  elector  into  an  agent — a messenger  if  you  will — whose 
honorable  duty  it  is  to  cast  a ballot  for  one  who  may  not  be  his  per- 
sonal choice  for  President  or  whom,  indeed,  he  may  regard  as  unfitted 
for  the  position  of  President.  The  constitutional  theory  has  been 
abandoned  and  one  more  democratic  has  been  substituted.  We 
evolved  a presidential  election  plan  which,  while  departing  from  the 
philosophy  of  the  makers  of  our  national  organic  law,  preserved  its 
letter  and  made  it  subserve  the  purpose  of  a society  more  highly 
developed  than  that  existent  when  the  law  was  made.  This  is  the 
history  of  all  written  law.  There  is  nothing  startling  in  the  proposal 
that  the  Constitution  or  any  other  law  shall  be  so  interpreted  as  to 
meet  modern  needs  and  thought.  We  moved  toward  democracy 
when  we  abolished  the  elector  as  an  elector  and  left  him  but  a figure- 
head, and  it  will  be  a much  less  radical  move  to  give  instructions  by 
popular  vote  to  the  delegate  who  names  the  party  candidate.  Indeed 
it  would  appear  that  to  follow  the  latter  course  would  be  to  do  no 
more  than  institute  a procedure  complementary  to  the  former. 

CORRUPT  PRACTICES  ACT. 

The  next  step  in  popular  government  in  Oregon  after  the  adoption 
°\We  direct  primary  law  was  the  adoption  of  a corrupt  practices  act 
which  the  legislature  had  refused  to  enact,  but  which  the  people  of 
the  State  adopted  under  the  initiative. 

The  corrupt  practices  act  was  adopted  under  the  initiative  in  1908 
by  popular  vote  of  54,042  to  31,301.  It  provides  that  no  candidate 
tor  office  shall  expend  in  his  campaign  for  nomination  more  than  15 
per  cent  of  one  year’s  compensation  of  the  office  for  which  he  is  a can- 
didate, provided  that  no  candidate  shall  be  restricted  to  less  than  $100. 

PUBLICITY  PAMPHLET. 

The  act  provides,  however,  for  the  publication  of  a pamphlet  by 
the  secretary  of  state  for  the  information  of  voters,  in  which  pamphlet 
a candidate  in  the  primary  campaign  may  have  published  a statement 
setting  forth  his  qualifications,  the  principles  and  policies  he  advocates 
and  favors,  or  any  other  matter  he  may  wish  to  submit  in  support  of 
his  candidacy.  Each  candidate  must  pay  for  at  least  one  page  the 
amount  to  be  paid  varying  from  $100  for  the  highest  office  to  $10  for 
the  minor  offices.  Every  candidate  may  secure  the  use  of  additional 
pages  at  $100  per  page,  not  exceeding  three  additional  pages.  Any 
person  may  use  space  in  this  pamphlet  in  opposition  to  any  candidate 
the.  “atter  submitted  by  him  being  first  served  upon  the  candidate 
andlthe  space  being  paid  for  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  candidates. 

submitted  in  opposition  to  candidates  must  be  signed  by 
tne^author,  who  is  subject  to  the  general  laws  regarding  slander  and 
S.  Doc.  524,  61-2—2 


18 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


libel.  Information  regarding  state  and  congressional  candidates  is 
printed  in  a pamphlet  issued  by  the  secretary  of  state,  one  copy  being 
mailed  to  each  registered  voter  in  the  State.  Pamphlets  regarding 
county  candidates  are  issued  by  the  county  clerk  and  mailed  to  each 
voter  in  the  county.  These  pamphlets  must  be  mailed  at  least  eight 
days  before  the  primary  election.  The  amount  of  money  paid  for 
space  in  the  public  pamphlet  of  information  is  not  considered  in  deter- 
mining the  amount  each  candidate  has  expended  in  his  campaign; 
that  is,  he  is  entitled  to  expend  in  his  primary  campaign  15  per  cent 
of  one  year’s  compensation  in  addition  to  what  he  pays  for  space  in 
the  public  pamphlet. 

Prior  to  the  general  election  the  executive  committee  or  managing 
officers  of  any  political  party  or  organization  may  file  with  the  sec- 
retary of  state  portrait  cuts  of  its  candidates  and  typewritten  state- 
ments and  arguments  for  the  success  of  its  principles  and  the  election 
of  its  candidates  and  opposing  or  attacking  the  principles  and  candi- 
dates of  all  other  parties.  This  same  privilege  applies  to  independent 
candidates.  These  statements  and  arguments  are  printed  in  a pam- 
phlet and  mailed  to  the  registered  voters  of  the  State  not  later  than 
the  tenth  day  before  the  general  election. 

Each  party  is  limited  to  24  pages,  and  each  independent  candidate 
to  2 pages,  each  page  in  this  pamphlet  being  charged  for  at  the  rate 
of  $50  per  page.  In  the  campaign  preceding  the  general  election 
each  candidate  is  limited  in  campaign  expenditures  to  10  per  cent 
of  one  year’s  compensation. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  act  the  contribution,  expenditure,  or  lia- 
bility of  a descendant,  ascendant,  brother,  sister,  uncle,  aunt,  nephew, 
niece,  wife,  partner,  employer,  employee,  or  fellow-official  or  fellow-em- 
ployee of  a corporation  is  deemed  to  be  that  of  the  candidate  himself. 
Any  person  not  a candidate  spending  more  than  $50  in  a campaign 
must  file  an  itemized  account  of  his  expenditures  in  the  office  of  the 
secretary  of  state  or  the  county  clerk  and  give  a copy  of  the  account 
to  the  candidate  for  whom  or  against  whom  the  money  was  spent. 

LEGITIMATE  USE  OF  MONEY  WITHIN  LIMIT. 

While  the  corrupt  practices  act  limits  the  candidate  to  the  expendi- 
ture of  15  per  cent  of  one  year’s  salary  in  his  primary  campaign  and 
10  per  cent  of  a year’s  salary  in  the  general  campaign,  in  addition  to 
what  he  pays  for  space  in  the  publicity  pamphlet,  yet  the  law  does 
not  prohibit  any  legitimate  use  of  money  within  this  limitation. 
The  act  makes  it  possible  for  a man  of  moderate  means  to  be  a candi- 
date upon  an  equality  with  a man  of  wealth. 

Let  us  take  a concrete  example  as  a means  of  illustrating  the 
operation  of  Oregon’s  corrupt  practices  act.  The  salary  of  the 
governor  is  $5,000  a year.  A candidate  for  the  nomination  for 
governor  may  take  a maximum  of  four  pages  in  the  publicity  pamphlet, 
and  thus,  at  a cost  of  $400,  be  able  to  reach  every  registered  voter 
of  his  party  in  the  entire  State.  In  addition  to  that  $400  he  may 
spend  $750,  or  15  per  cent  of  one  year’s  salary,  in  any  other  manner 
he  may  choose,  not  in  violation  of  the  corrupt  practices  act.  A 
candidate  may"  purchase  space  in  the  advertising  columns  of  a news- 
paper, but  in  order  that  this  paid  advertising  shall  not  be  mistaken 
for  news,  the  law  requires  that  all  paid  articles  be  marked  as  such. 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT.  19 

The  law  expressly  provides  that  none  of  its  provisions  shall  be 
construed  as  relating  to  the  rendering  of  services  by  speakers,  writers, 
publishers,  or  others  for  which  no  compensation  is  asked  or  given; 
nor  to  prohibit  expenditure  by  committees  of  political  parties  or 
organizations  for  public  speakers,  music,  halls,  lights,  literature, 
advertising,  office  rent,  printing,  postage,  clerk  hire,  challengers  or 
watchers  at  the  polls,  traveling  expenses,  telegraphing  or  telephoning, 
or  the  making  of  poll  lists. 

The  successful  nominee  in  the  primary  may  spend  in  his  general 
campaign  10  per  cent  of  one  year’s  salary,  this  expenditure,  in  the  case 
of  a candidate  for  governor,  being  $500.  In  addition  to  this  10  per 
cent  of  a year’s  salary  he  may  contribute  toward  the  payment  for  his 
party’s  statement  in  the  publicity  pamphlet  to  be  mailed  by  the 
secretary  of  state  to  every  registered  voter.  In  the  publicity  pam- 
phlet for  the  general  campaign  each  party  may  use  not  to  exceed  24 
pages,  at  $50  per  page,  making  the  total  cost  to  the  party  committee 
$1,200,  or  about  $100  for  each  candidate. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  Mr.  President 

The  Presiding  Officer  (Mr.  Curtis  in  the  chair).  Does  the  Sena- 
tor from  Oregon  yield  to  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  ? 

Mr.  Bourne.  I do. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  Will  it  interrupt  the  Senator  if  I ask  him  a ques- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Bourne.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I am  very  much  interested  in  the  Senator’s  state- 
ment, and  I wish  to  ask  him,  Is  there  any  means  of  preventing  other 
persons  from  contributing  to  the  campaign  of  a candidate?  For 
instance,  the  governor  of  Oregon  is  permitted  to  expend  $750  in  addi- 
tion to  the  cost  of  advertising  in  the  pamphlet  referred  to. 

Mr.  Bourne.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  Is  there  any  method  which  would  prevent  his 
friends  outside  from  putting  up  money  to  aid  him  in  his  campaign,  to 
a very  large  extent,  possibly  ? 

Mr.  Bourne.  Mr.  President,  in  answer  to  the  inquiry  of  the  Sen- 
ator from  New  Hampshire,  I will  say  that  there  is  an  express  pro- 
vision in  the  law  that  no  individual  can  expend  more  than  $50  for 
anybody  else,  unless  he  files  a statement  of  his  expenses,  and  he 
becomes  liable  to  the  provisions  of  the  law,  which  the  Senator  will 
see,  as  I go  along,  covers  that  point  very  fully. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  The  Senator  from  Oregon  had  not  stated  that, 
and  I wanted  to  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Bourne.  Certainly. 

The  candidate  is  therefore  limited  to  an  expenditure  of  $600  in 
his  general  campaign,  $100  of  which  is  necessary  in  order  to  enable 
him  to  reach  every  registered  voter.  He  could  reach  every  registered 
voter  in  his  party  in  the  primary  campaign  for  $400.  Under  no 
other  system  could  a candidate  reach  all  the  voters  in  two  cam- 
paigns at  a total  cost  of  $500. 

IMPROPER  ACTS  PROHIBITED. 

The  Oregon  corrupt  practices  act  encourages  and  aids  publicity, 
but  prohibits  the  excessive  or  improper  use  of  money  or  other  agencies 
for  the  subversion  of  clean  elections.  Among  the  acts  which  are 
prohibited  I may  mention  these: 


20 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


Promises  of  appointments  in  return  for  political  support. 

Solicitation  or  acceptance  of  campaign  contributions  from  or  pay- 
ment of  contributions  by  persons  holding  appointive  positions. 

Publication  or  distribution  of  anonymous  letters  or  circulars  regard- 
ing candidates  or  measures  before  the  people. 

Sale  of  editorial  support  or  the  publication  of  paid  political  adver- 
tising without  marking  it  “Paid  advertising.” 

Use  of  carriages  in  conveying  voters  to  the  polls. 

Active  electioneering  or  soliciting  votes  on  election  day. 

Campaign  contributions  by  quasi  public  or  certain  other  important 
classes  of  corporations  generally  affected  by  legislation. 

Intimidation  or  coercion  of  voters  in  any  manner. 

Soliciting  candidates  to  subscribe  to  religious,  charitable,  public, 
and  semipublic  enterprises;  but  this  does  not  prohibit  regular  pay- 
ments to  any  organization  of  which  the  candidate  has  been  a member, 
or  to  which  he  has  been  a contributor  for  more  than  six  months  before 
his  candidacy. 

Contribution  of  funds  in  the  name  of  any  other  than  the  person 
furnishing  the  money. 

Treating  by  candidates  as  a means  of  winning  favor. 

Payment  or  promise  to  reward  another  for  the  purpose  of  inducing 
him  to  become  or  refrain  from  becoming  or  cease  being  a candidate, 
or  solicitation  of  such  consideration. 

Betting  on  an  election  by  a candidate,  or  betting  on  an  election  by 
any  other  person  with  intent  to  influence  the  result. 

Attempting  to  vote  in  the  name  of  another  person,  living,  dead, 
or  fictitious. 


PUBLICITY  OF  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES. 

There  is  no  interference  with  such  legitimate  acts  as  tend  to  secure 
full  publicity  and  free  expression  of  opinion.  Personal  and  political 
liberty  is  in  no  way  infringed  upon,  the  only  purpose  being  to  pro- 
hibit the  excessive  use  of  money,  promises  of  appointment,  or  decep- 
tion or  fraud . 

The  corrupt  practices  act  requires  that  every  candidate  shall  file 
an  itemized  statement  of  his  campaign  expenditures  within  fifteen 
days  after  the  primary  election,  including  in  such  statement  not 
only  all  amounts  expended,  but  all  debts  incurred  or  unfulfilled 
promises  made. 

Every  political  committee  must  have  a treasurer,  and  cause  him 
to  keep  a detailed  account  of  its  receipts,  payments,  and  liabilities. 
Any  committee  or  agent  or  representative  of  a candidate  must  file 
an  itemized  statement  of  receipts  and  expenditures  within  ten  days 
after  the  election.  The  books  of  account  of  any  treasurer  of  any  po- 
litical party,  committee,  or  organization  during  an  election  campaign 
shall  be  open  at  all  reasonable  office  hours  to  the  inspection  of  the 
treasurer  and  chairman  of  any  opposing  political  party  or  organization 
for  the  same  electoral  district.  Failure  to  file  statements  as  required 
by  law  is  punishable  by  fine. 

The  candidate  violating  any  section  of  the  currupt  practices  act 
forfeits  his  right  to  the  office.  Any  other  person  violating  any  sec- 
tion of  this  act  is  punished  by  imprisonment  of  not  more  than  one 
year  in  the  county  jail,  or  a fine  of  not  more  than  $5,000,  or  both. 
The  candidate  is  also  subject  to  the  same  penalties. 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


21 


THE  RECALL. 

The  final  step  in  the  establishment  of  popular  government  in 
Oregon  was  the  adoption  of  the  recall  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution, which  was  adopted  in  1908  by  a vote  of  58,381  to  31,002. 
Under  this  amendment  any  public  officer  may  be  recalled  by  the 
filing  of  a petition  signed  by  25  per  cent  of  the  number  of  electors 
who  voted  in  his  district  in  the  preceding  election.  The  petition 
must  set  forth  the  reasons  for  the  recall,  and  if  the  officer  does  not 
resign  within  five  days  after  the  petition  is  filed  a special  election 
must  be  ordered  to  be  held  within  twenty  days  to  determine  whether 
the  people  will  recall  such  officer.  On  the  ballot  at  such  election 
the  reasons  for  demanding  the  recall  of  said  officer  may  be  set  forth 
in  not  more  than  200  words.  His  justification  of  his  course  in  office 
may  be  set  forth  in  a like  number  of  words.  He  retains  his  office 
until  the  results  of  the  special  election  have  been  officially  declared. 

No  petition  can  be  circulated  against  any  officer  until  he  has 
held  office  six  months,  except  that  in  the  case  of  a member  of  the 
state  legislature  it  may  be  filed  at  any  time  after  five  days  from  the 
beginning  of  the  first  session  after  his  election.  At  the  special  elec- 
tion the  candidate  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes  is  de- 
clared elected.  The  special  election  is  held  at  public  expense,  but 
a second  recall  petition  can  not  be  filed  against  an  officer  unless  the 
petitioners  first  pay  the  entire  expense  of  the  first  recall  election. 

THE  BEST  SYSTEM  OF  POPULAR  GOVERNMENT. 

Mr.  President,  I reiterate  that  Oregon  has  evolved  the  best  system 
of  popular  government  that  exists  in  the  world  to-day. 

The  Australian  ballot  assures  the  honesty  of  elections. 

The  registration  law  guards  the  integrity  of  the  privilege  of  Ameri- 
can citizenship — participation  in  government. 

The  direct  primary  absolutely  insures  popular  selection  of  all  can- 
didates and  establishes  the  responsibility  of  the  public  servant  to  the 
electorate  and  not  to  any  political  boss  or  special  interest. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  is  the  keystone  of  the  arch  of  popular 
government,  for  by  means  of  this  the  people  may  accomplish  such 
other  reforms  as  they  desire.  The  initiative  develops  the  electorate 
because  it  encourages  study  of  principles  and  policies  of  government, 
and  affords  the  originator  of  new  ideas  in  government  an  opportunity 
to  secure  popular  judgment  upon  his  measures  if  8 per  cent  of  the 
voters  of  his  State  deem  the  same  worthy  of  submission  to  popular 
vote.  The  referendum  prevents  misuse  of  the  power  temporarily 
centralized  in  the  legislature. 

The  corrupt-practices  act  is  necessary  as  a complement  to  the 
initiative  and  referendum  and  the  direct  primary,  for,  without  the 
corrupt-practices  act,  these  other  features  of  popular  government 
could  be  abused.  As  I have  fully  explained,  the  publicity  pamphlet 
provided  for  by  the  corrupt-practices  act  affords  all  candidates  for 
nomination  or  election  equal  means  of  presenting  before  the  voter 
their  views  upon  public  questions,  and  protects  the  honest  candi- 
date against  the  misuse  of  money  in  political  campaigns.  Under 
the  operation  of  this  law  popular  verdicts  will  be  based  upon  ideas, 
not  money;  argument,  not  abuse;  principles,  not  boss  or  machine 
dictation.. 


22 


POPULAR  VERSUS  DELEGATED  GOVERNMENT. 


The  recall,  to  my  mind,  is  rather  an  admonitory  or  precautionary 
measure,  the  existence  of  which  will  prevent  the  necessity  for  its  use. 
At  rare  intervals  there  may  be  occasion  for  exercise  of  the  recall 
against  municipal  or  county  officers,  but  I believe  the  fact  of  its 
existence  will  prevent  need  for  its  use  against  the  higher  officials. 
It  is,  however,  an  essential  feature  of  a complete  system  of  popular 
government. 

ABSOLUTE  GOVERNMENT  BY  THE  PEOPLE. 

Under  the  machine  and  political-boss  system  the  confidence  of 
sincere  partisans  is  often  betrayed  by  recreant  leaders  in  political 
contests  and  by  public  servants  who  recognize  the  irresponsible 
machine  instead  of  the  electorate  as  the  source  of  power  to  which 
they  are  responsible.  If  the  enforcement  of  the  Oregon  laws  will 
right  these  wrongs,  then  they  were  conceived  in  wisdom  and  born 
in  justice  to  the  people,  in  justice  to  the  public  servant,  and  in  justice 
to  the  partisan. 

Plainly  stated,  the  aim  and  purpose  of  the  laws  are  to  destroy  the 
irresponsible  political  machine  and  to  put  all  elective  offices  in  the 
State  in  direct  touch  with  the  people  as  the  real  source  of  authority; 
in  short,  to  give  direct  and  full  force  to  the  ballot  of  every  individual 
elector  in  Oregon  and  to  eliminate  dominance  of  corporate  and  cor- 
rupt influences  in  the  administration  of  public  affairs.  The  Oregon 
laws  mark  the  course  that  must  be  pursued  before  the  wrongful  use 
of  corporate  power  can  be  dethroned,  the  people  restored  to  power, 
and  lasting  reform  secured.  They  insure  absolute  government  by 
the  people. 


